RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00192
				INDEX CODE:  106.00
	 			COUNSEL:  None

				HEARING DESIRED:  No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  13 Jul 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 1994 general discharge for misconduct be changed to a medical separation and that the characterization of his service be upgraded to honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Although undiagnosed, he did have mental problems while in the Air Force that should have resulted in a medical discharge.  Had he been treated for these disorders the outcome would have been different.  Instead, these disorders continue to affect him.  He could have had the opportunity to be diagnosed shortly before he left the Air Force but he was afraid the disclosure would have added more evidence against him while his discharge was in process.  He indicates his first major depressive episode occurred when he was in the fifth grade.  He gradually worked out of the depressive episode, but entered his second major depressive episode after he entered the Air Force.  He began to cut himself to relieve stress, and had social anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder to contend with also.  He has been diagnosed with major depressive disorder (recurrent), obsessive-compulsive disorder, and severe anxiety.  Had he been diagnosed and treated for these problems, he would have made better choices in the later part of his Air Force career.  He wants his discharge upgraded so he will have better job opportunities.

The applicant provides two letters from civilian medical providers regarding his medical condition and other documentation.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The following information was extracted from documents provided by the applicant (Exhibit A) and his available military records (Exhibit B). 

The applicant underwent a medical exam for enlistment on 16 Dec 89.  On the Report of Medical History, he indicated he had not experienced depression or excessive worry, or been treated for a mental condition.  He enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 Apr 91, and served as a computer systems operations technician at Randolph AFB, TX.  He was promoted to the grade of airman first class (A1C) on 17 Aug 92.

On 13 Aug 93, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for failing to perform certain procedures on 16 Jul 93.  He apparently was verbally counseled twice before regarding attention to detail.  He received another LOC, on 20 Sep 93, for failing to meet his financial obligations.  On 23 Nov 93, he received another LOC for not maintaining his mustache, hair, and uniform according to standards.

On an AF Form 418, dated 25 Jan 94, the applicant’s supervisor indicated he was not recommending the applicant for reenlistment due to his failure to consistently meet Air Force standards.  He had been counseled concerning job performance and displayed no measurable improvement.  Encouragement and projects to improve his initiative did not produce timely results comparable to his peers.  He also required counseling for financial responsibility and traffic violations.  The applicant’s on- and off-duty performance was not compatible with the caliber of desired personnel.  The unit commander concurred and, on 25 Jan 94, the applicant indicated he intended to appeal the nonrecommendation.

On 10 Mar 94, the applicant received an LOC for being late for duty.

On 3 May 94, the appellate authority concurred with the commander’s decision to nonrecommend the applicant for reenlistment.

On 10 May 94, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for wrongfully appropriating a 10-speed bicycle, the property of a master sergeant and valued at about $100.00, and 13 government computer diskettes containing software programs, valued in excess of $200.00, on or about 5 May 94, at or near Randolph AFB, TX.  On 16 May 94, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived his 
right to a trial by court-martial, requested a personal appearance and submitted a written presentation.  He indicated he understood he was wrong in doing what he did and claimed he intended to return the bike and diskettes he had “borrowed.”  He indicated his actions were the result of his frustration and uncertainty about his future when he was not recommended for reenlistment.  On 18 May 94, he was found guilty by his commander who imposed punishment in form of reduction to airman basic.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment and the Article 15 was filed in his Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 15 Jun 94, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend a general discharge for misconduct (minor disciplinary infractions).  The commander cited the Article 15 and the LOCs.  The applicant consulted counsel and submitted statements.  The commander recommended a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R) because of the applicant’s attitude, as evidenced by the failure of prior rehabilitative efforts.

The applicant underwent a separation physical on 20 Jun 94, and indicated on the Report of Medical History that he had not experienced depression or excessive worry or nervous trouble of any sort.

Legal review, on 24 Jun 94, found the case sufficient for separation and recommended a general discharge for misconduct without P&R.  The discharge authority concurred and, on 8 Jul 94, the applicant was discharged for misconduct in the grade of airman basic with a general characterization after 3 years, 2 months, and 22 days of active service.  

On 9 Apr 02, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC), Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB), denied the applicant’s request for an honorable discharge, indicating there was no evidence in his medical records to indicate that his major depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder occurred while in the Air Force.  

According to documents submitted by the applicant in this appeal and to the AFDRB (Exhibit A and B), he began therapeutic treatment in Dec 97 for depressive disorder with secondary components of obsessive-compulsive disorder.  The psychologist associate opined that the applicant’s mood disorder likely existed throughout his adolescent and adult history and was present in 1994.  Further, his past adjustment difficulties may have been minimized had his condition been diagnosed and treated.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant discusses the applicant’s condition and advises that, while in retrospect it is plausible he experienced recurrent depression that began prior to entry into military service, there is no evidence he lacked the mental capacity to know right from wrong and conform to the right as a result of his condition.  It is speculative as to what might have happened had the applicant sought care while in service instead of waiting until three years after separation.  Based on the evidence of record, it is also plausible the applicant may have been diagnosed with unsuiting conditions such as personality disorder and adjustment disorder resulting in administrative discharge.  If diagnosis of his existed-prior-to-service (EPTS) condition had been made, there is no evidence military service aggravated the condition beyond the natural course of the condition.  The preponderance of evidence in the records is consistent with no more than a mild severity at the time.  Processing through the disability system would have likely than not resulted in a recommendation for discharge due to an EPTS condition not permanently aggravated by military service (discharge without compensation).  Since there was misconduct with processing for administrative discharge, the case would have been considered a dual action case by the SAFPC.  The Council determines under which basis for discharge an airman will be separated:  misconduct or disability.  Today, unless the medical disability is the clear cause of the misconduct, renders the member legally insane, or is of a compelling and severe nature, the SAFPC consistently decides to separate based on the misconduct.  Action and disposition in this case were proper and equitable and no change in the applicant’s records is warranted.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 2 Dec 05 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 
2.	The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded his 1994 general discharge for misconduct should be changed to an honorable discharge for 
medical disability.  The applicant’s contentions and submitted statements were duly noted; however, we do not find these, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the AFBCMR Medical Consultant.  As indicated in the Consultant’s discussion, while it may be plausible the applicant experienced recurrent depression that began prior to entry into military service, there is no evidence he was not accountable for his actions because he lacked the mental capacity to know right from wrong and to conform to the right.  Further, had the applicant sought care while in the service instead of waiting three years after separation, it is also plausible he may have been diagnosed with unsuiting conditions, such as personality disorder and adjustment disorder, and been administratively discharged.  There is no evidence the military service aggravated his EPTS condition beyond the natural course of the condition.  The Consultant’s review of the applicant’s service medical records found no evidence of mental illness that either warranted disability evaluation or mitigated his misconduct.  He further concluded that discharge for misconduct would still have been the most likely outcome even if the case had been processed as a dual action case.  In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we agree with the AFBCMR Medical Consultant that the applicant has not sustained his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 26 January 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

						Panel Chair
						Member
						Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-00192 was considered:

   Exhibit A. DD Form 149, undated (received 31 Jan 05), w/atchs.
   Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR Medical Consultant, dated 29 Nov 05.
   Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Dec 05.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair